one more batch
A few questions came in late, so here are the answers.
Is a feisty Karl Dorrell a good or bad sign for the team's performance? What is UCLA's record in the weeks where Dorrell is feisty with the media versus the weeks where he is passive and pliable?
I don’t keep track of Dorrell’s record when he is feisty with the media, but I don’t see how it helps. I know I’m not playing in the game, and I don’t need to be motivated to play. As for it being a sign of how the team performs, I’m not sure either. I do that a coach on edge usually doesn’t translate to a team playing relaxed.
I know your heart leaped into your mouth when Pat Cowan converted an impossible 3-20 v UW when he connnected with Ketchum on a perfectly thrown flag route. The pass was thrown with perfect touch. Why can't Ben Olson convert 3rd downs throwing the ball? Olson was only 2 for 12 on 3rd down conversions throwing the ball. That's just throwing the ball, there were no planned runs.
I get it. You disagree with me about who should be the QB. That’s fine. But let’s also point out that against one of the worst defenses in the Pac-10, not to mention in the NCAA, Cowan led three TD drives, one of which was set up by a 57-yard pass (from Brandon Breazell to Terrence Austin. Cowan was also 17 of 30 for 147 yards, and threw an interception that turned the momentum of the game. If the Washington game sold you on the fact Cowan should be the starter, good for you. I didn’t get that from watching the game. And just because Olson isn't playing well, it doesn't mean the alternative will be better.
The difference between Ben Olson and Patrick Cowan on 3rd down is outright staggering. No wonder UCLA almost lost to BYU (!) and did to Utah (!!!). Against Stanford, a horrible D, Olson was only 2 for 12 throwing the ball on 3rd down, and many times the guy was wide open and the ball was horribly off line. Versus UW, a much, much, much better team, Patrick Cowan converted 7 3rd or 4th downs out of 12 chances. Wow! I excluded a spiked pass on 3rd down and the Hail Mary that followed it to end the 1st half. Have you really given enough airtime to how amazing Cowan's performance was under pressure, given his bad leg and lack of practice time? Has Olson ever converted on 3rd down like that? And is Karl Dorrell even the least bit aware how good Cowan was on 3rd down? I get the sense that Ben Howland would be raving about Cowan if Howland could coach FB...
Again, a take on the same question by the SAME person as above. Great. Cowan is so good he lost the starting QB battle twice, and is below .500 as a starter. And if you think Dorrell has an agenda on who the starting QB should be, I think that is an extremely weak argument since that would infer Dorrell is willing to lose his job than win on the field.
Less than 50% of those polled elsewhere on the internets believe UCLA is wired to be a "top 15" FB program. Unscientific, sure. But what does your research tell you? Here are some other notable CFB programs across the country:
Big East: WVU
ACC: FSU, Miami, VaTech
SEC: LSU, FL, bama, Arkansas, GA, Auburn, Tennessee
Big 10: The OSU, Michigan, Penn State
Big 12: OU, TX, Nebby, K-State
P10: sc, Cal, Oregon, UW, ASU
Indy: Notre Dame
Where was the poll conducted? What is the margin of error? Did more votes come from outside of L.A.? How many people responded? Could a person respond twice or more, or where they locked in with only one vote? Too many unknowns in your post. I know I do not believe UCLA is an elite program, although, in my opinion, there are a fair number of people who believe otherwise.
Comments
Since you don't view UCLA as an elite program, do you aspire to one day cover an elite program, or are you satisfied covering a middle of the pack football program?
Posted by: silverlake bruin | September 28, 2007 08:38 PM
Nice to see Pat Cowan's dad on the blog I guess.
Posted by: ReelBruin![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.insidesocal.com/ucla/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 28, 2007 08:48 PM
Thank you Brian for the time, answers and expertise. I especially appreciate you adding some grounding comments on the PC hysteria.
Posted by: Rand | September 28, 2007 08:58 PM
Dad? Thats probably Pat himself.
Posted by: BooBoo | September 28, 2007 09:30 PM
Silverlake,
I do cover an elite program. It's coached by Ben Howland.
Posted by: Brian Dohn | September 28, 2007 09:39 PM
LOL. Well stated Brian. I was thinking the same thing.
However, I have to say this positive about Coach Dorrell that is often overlooked. Yes he was inexperienced. Yes there has been a lot of turnover with the assistants. Yes the recruiting the first 3 years were subpar for UCLA standards. Yes the games could have been better managed. And yes, academics too often factor which blue chips athletes get offers. And Yet with ALL of that as negatives, Dorrell is still better than a .500 coach.
With the subpar recruiting and playing in a very competitive conference where the road games are underestimated, UCLA would have had to consistency in either coaching or superior recruiting to consistently win. They've had neither.
Example, Cal in the same period has had a program that seems to have surpassed UCLA as the #2 in conference with a terrific coach in Tedford but they've yet to beat Oregon on the road or either of the LA schools on the road. Cal has yet to defeat a ranked opponent on the road. Hardly the characteristics of an elite program.
Critics often compare Dorrell to Lavin. Lavin had Baron, Watson, Gadzuric, Moiso, Barnes. The #1 ranked recruiting class and had some success. He took over a Ferrari and ended up with a Yugo. Dorrell didn't exactly take over a Ferrari. Toledo had already started losing to SC and badly. Already was losing the recruiting battle. And badly. The team was fragmented. That too, also badly.
If the administration could make a commitment to these assistants as well as the football program GIVEN the improvement in recruiting over the last two years...well who knows. I doubt Dorrell could do worse than he has already done but there is significant upside. Just having the same OC around for 3 to 5 years. Wouldn't that be something? And Norvell looks pretty good to me. And it would be a terrible blow if Walker left.
Lastly, the surest sign to me as a fan that the program is losing it is not the horrible loss to Utah, but the drop off in recruiting. The current commits rank in the top 5 and will probably end up at least in the top 10. Last year's commits stayed with UCLA even with the bad loss to FSU. To me that has hope written all over it.
Posted by: Trey![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.insidesocal.com/ucla/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 28, 2007 11:40 PM
brian, I think you're being intellectually dishonest and are misleading your readers. you give Olson credit for the 2006 win over Arizona, but he did nothing to win that game. he played two series and threw 4 passes. pat cowan deserves the credit for that win. btw, cowan is 4-1 in his last five games. what is olson's record v. bowl teams? did utah, rice n stanford go bowling in 06? will utah n stanford go this year?
Posted by: bruinmba | September 29, 2007 12:57 AM
Yes, Utah and Rice went to bowl games last season. Again, I get it. You want Cowan. I am not going to change my mind, and this is the last response I will have on this matter.
Posted by: Brian Dohn | September 29, 2007 07:31 AM
Bruin MBA
why do you pick a fight with the beat writer? He respects your opinion, he just doesn't agree with you. why can't he have a different opinion? all of your comments are...
Cowan - awesome
Olson - evil
While I agree that Cowan brings a leadership quality that is impressive, your attacks on Olson are frankly quite sad
Posted by: Bruin57![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.insidesocal.com/ucla/nav-commenters.gif)
|
September 29, 2007 09:08 AM